Kansas Governor watch (early polling)

[Cire]

Going to be a lot of cheap unskilled labor in KS in like 18 yrs, or so.

He's trying to turn KS into Mexico to work in Koch factories.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Man, Brownback, what a stud. The Court says he has to spend more on education, so he takes the money out of KPERS! 

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article4413431.html

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yeah, take that teachers!

[Cire]

Damn education dragging down the economy

[CNS]

Yep.  Under funding pension by $7.4billion?   eff it, make a withdrawl. 

[Kat Kid]

Man, Brownback, what a stud. The Court says he has to spend more on education, so he takes the money out of KPERS! 

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article4413431.html

Well, it is kind of weird that he rolled KPERS in to "per pupil" spending earlier when the state tried to work on the pension hole, but now he is using the term "classroom" spending because he raided the pension because of the budget short fall.  Brownback is certainly creative.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Man, Brownback, what a stud. The Court says he has to spend more on education, so he takes the money out of KPERS! 

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article4413431.html

Well, it is kind of weird that he rolled KPERS in to "per pupil" spending earlier when the state tried to work on the pension hole, but now he is using the term "classroom" spending because he raided the pension because of the budget short fall.  Brownback is certainly creative.

I cannot verify, but this sounds right. Huge stud. Are SC Justices part of KPERS? 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Just doing what Sebelius did. Not sure I see what the source of outrage is.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Government pensions are unsustainable and at some point yearly expenditures will be more than entire state and city budgets. New employees need to be put in 401k's like the rest of us.

[Kat Kid]

Government pensions are unsustainable and at some point yearly expenditures will be more than entire state and city budgets. New employees need to be put in 401k's like the rest of us.

401k's are also unsustainable because people fail to adequately provide for their own retirements.  The nexus of low savings rates, unpredictable markets, stagnant wages, decreasing labor force, and the increasing reliance on 401ks will cause huge problems that are completely unrelated to pensions, but will ultimately result in remedies that will probably be more costly than adequately funding pensions.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Government pensions are unsustainable and at some point yearly expenditures will be more than entire state and city budgets. New employees need to be put in 401k's like the rest of us.

401k's are also unsustainable because people fail to adequately provide for their own retirements.  The nexus of low savings rates, unpredictable markets, stagnant wages, decreasing labor force, and the increasing reliance on 401ks will cause huge problems that are completely unrelated to pensions, but will ultimately result in remedies that will probably be more costly than adequately funding pensions.

So what's the answer? If the governments are failing to adequately provide for their employees retirements, it seems the people need to do it themselves. 401k is the next best option.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Government pensions are unsustainable and at some point yearly expenditures will be more than entire state and city budgets. New employees need to be put in 401k's like the rest of us.

401k's are also unsustainable because people fail to adequately provide for their own retirements.  The nexus of low savings rates, unpredictable markets, stagnant wages, decreasing labor force, and the increasing reliance on 401ks will cause huge problems that are completely unrelated to pensions, but will ultimately result in remedies that will probably be more costly than adequately funding pensions.

This is humorously libtarded on many levels. So, 401ks are "unsustainable" because people are too stupid to fund them? Sounds like that's a problem with the people - not the investment vehicle.

I also like the acknowledgement of stagnant wages and a dimishing labor force. You know what will fix that? More liberal tax and spend redistribution of weath, like stuffing pension funds, amiright?

And then there's the "welp, we're better off just stuffing tax dollars into pensions instead of paying to take care of people later on" - 'cause those are totally the only two choices.

You know what would be a good policy? Phase in a complete dismanteling of KPERS, replacing it with modest wage raises.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

A study by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research more recently pegged the combined total unfunded pension liabilities of CalPERS, the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) and the University of California retirement plan at $485 billion.

that's about $44,000 for each taxpayer in the state.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

A study by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research more recently pegged the combined total unfunded pension liabilities of CalPERS, the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) and the University of California retirement plan at $485 billion.

that's about $44,000 for each taxpayer in the state.

Impossible. Cali has really high taxes.

Per the libtards, deficits are good and budgets are bad, so this really doesn't move the needle for me.

[CNS]

Who here is amazed that when you operate a pension, with a very large amt of employees, for a certain period of time, yet don't contribute adequately to it, that it creates a huge neg number?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Who here is amazed that when you operate a pension, with a very large amt of employees, for a certain period of time, yet don't contribute adequately to it, that it creates a huge neg number?

It's the "contribute adequately" part that keep tripping me up. I don't think we should contribute at all. Pay them a bit more and let them scrimp and save for their own damned retirement, like the rest of us.

[steve dave]

I have both a 401k and a pension but I work for euros

[CNS]

Who here is amazed that when you operate a pension, with a very large amt of employees, for a certain period of time, yet don't contribute adequately to it, that it creates a huge neg number?

It's the "contribute adequately" part that keep tripping me up. I don't think we should contribute at all. Pay them a bit more and let them scrimp and save for their own damned retirement, like the rest of us.

That is fine.  Just don't hire the employee with a given stated benefit package then underfund it without an alternate plan. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Who here is amazed that when you operate a pension, with a very large amt of employees, for a certain period of time, yet don't contribute adequately to it, that it creates a huge neg number?

It's the "contribute adequately" part that keep tripping me up. I don't think we should contribute at all. Pay them a bit more and let them scrimp and save for their own damned retirement, like the rest of us.

My employer matches my 401k contribution. I wouldn't work for anyone who didn't offer a pension or some sort of retirement benefit.

[CNS]

Who here is amazed that when you operate a pension, with a very large amt of employees, for a certain period of time, yet don't contribute adequately to it, that it creates a huge neg number?

It's the "contribute adequately" part that keep tripping me up. I don't think we should contribute at all. Pay them a bit more and let them scrimp and save for their own damned retirement, like the rest of us.

My employer matches my 401k contribution. I wouldn't work for anyone who didn't offer a pension or some sort of retirement benefit.

Yeah and he can't go dip into that money when he fucks up the financial management of his company.

[Cire]

Are state employees allowed to opt out???

[Rage Against the McKee]

Are state employees allowed to opt out???

Even if you can opt out, it's probably not a good idea.

[Cire]

I mean, are people paying in that won't see the money again?

[michigancat]

I contribute quite a bit to my 401k, and I'm worried about the market crashing like the depression or a complete economy collapse but in that case I figure pretty much everyone is mumped and there are bigger problems to worry about than a stock portfolio.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

You don't have to buy stocks in your 401k retards.

The most glaring example as to why a government can't be trusted with a defined benefit retirement plan is social security.